Thursday, April 21, 2022

Once There Was a Spot

About two weeks ago, I asked readers to comment on roleplaying games they'd never played but wished they had. The responses were quite interesting and I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to comment on the post. Reading through them, one of the RPGs that was among the most commonly mentioned was Chaosium's Pendragon. Seeing the name of Greg Stafford's masterpiece mentioned so often warmed my heart. I'm incredibly fond of the game and am currently a player in a Pendragon campaign that's been running for more than a year now. However, I must admit that I often wonder how well known the game is outside of the circles in which I move. I'm generally of the opinion that Pendragon deserves to be better known, since it's one of a handful of roleplaying games I'd judge to be "perfect."

I'm not being hyperbolic when I call Pendragon perfect. I have a couple of good reasons to think this, reasons that have the benefit of having been repeatedly put to the test in multiple campaigns I've refereed or played in over the decades since the games original release in 1985. The first is straightforward: its rules are simple yet evocative. More than that, they actively encourage players to get into the mindset of Arthurian legendary characters – and do so without the necessity of having to engage in amateur thespianism. The personality traits and passions system really does make it easier for players to get into their characters' heads in a way that leads to play reminiscent of what you read in Malory

The second – and more substantial – reason I call Pendragon perfect is its built-in campaign structure. I've been harping on the joys of long campaigns since I returned to this blog almost two years ago. In discussing this matter with others, a common objection is that it's "too hard" to keep a campaign going for years on end, for both creative and logistical reasons. While I don't believe this is true (obviously), I do understand why someone who hadn't successfully been involved in a long campaign might think it was. That's the beauty of Pendragon: the game already does a lot of the heavy lifting for you. The rulebook provides a complete outline of decades of in-game events, from the end of Uther's reign to the fall of the death of Arthur. This is more than enough scaffolding for even a novice referee to build a sprawling, multi-generational campaign that would take, literally, years to complete, especially if you include the additional detail of supplements like The Boy King

Pendragon assumes that player knights will undertake only a single significant adventure during the course of a year. The game's use of "adventure" is similar to that used by Malory in Le Morte d'Arthur, meaning a major event or confrontation. When combined with the timeline of Arthur's reign the game outlines, the referee is easily able to set events in motion, with the characters providing additional momentum through their own actions, choices, and alliances. As the knights marry, have children, assume greater responsibilities, and eventually die, there's plenty of scope for all manner of drama and intrigue. After a few game years, a Pendragon campaign practically runs itself, making it an ideal vehicle for referees with little experience of long campaigns.

As I said, I'm currently playing in a Pendragon campaign and having a great deal of fun. My first knight. Sir Adtherp, is nearly 40 years old now, having served first the Earl of Salisbury and then Arthur for close to two decades. He has several sons but none are yet old enough to replace him, so I expect, barring an unexpected turn of events, I'll be playing him for several more game years at least. On the other hand, if events should claim Adtherp's life, he has brothers whom I could play until Adtherp's sons come of age, or else I could create a new character entirely. Things are always happening in the campaign, which is humming along quite nicely, thanks in no small part to the remarkable design of the game itself, which is why I never cease to sing Pendragon's praises.

18 comments:

  1. David Larkin's Solo GPC posts along with his crew from The Esoteric Order of Roleplayers were my first big exposure to Pendragon. I am currently listening to their Great Pendragon Campaign actual play for probably the third time. Definitely recommended for your listening pleasure.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I believe Adtherp is the only 'first gen' character still alive, right? With Tudfwlch being the only one of the second round still kicking.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A great game that is a whole lot of fun. I know that some people fear a loss of agency due to use of traits and passions, but it really does help pull you into the game. I don't know if I would have used the word perfect to describe it but...yeah, it's perfect.

    Well worth a look. You won't regret it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My only opportunities to play Pendragon have been one-shots at conventions, so my mention of it in your previous post was specifically in regard to the long-term, dynastic-style play it was intended to support.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pendragon seems super fascinating to me, but also so daunting. It is definitely one of those ones I dream about playing for sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The thing is, there are two Pendragons. There's Pendragon the rpg, and there's The Great Pendragon Campaign, and I think there's a tendency to conflate the two, or assume that they have to be played together, and the sheer scale of the latter is very daunting.

      For what it's worth, all of my favourite experiences with the game have had nothing to do with the GPC. You can have a fun and fulfilling time with the game and completely ignore the campaign.

      I don't mean that you play Pendragon and ignore the Arthur stories, although you can absolutely do that, but rather that you can play in Mythic Britain with the Arthur stuff in the background, roaming around, doing your own thing.

      The game can be as loose and freeform as you like, or you can tie it to the GPC, or you can run it in a patchwork setting informed by any version of the Arthur stories.

      Basically, don't be intimidated. It's a great game, and you can play it how you like. :)

      Delete
  6. I'm not well-versed in the edition history of the game. I have a beefy softback that has rules for playing magic-users and such... I regret not having the first edition boxed set which I take it was quite a bit simpler and to the point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be 4th Edition, which I'm told is pretty much the 3rd Edition and Knights Adventurous expansion stitched together with the magic rules added. I own 4th and 5th, as well as several supplements. It's one of those games I wanted to play or run, and would still like to draw a lot of inspiration from, but I've grown more suspicious of Stafford's take on the Matter of Britain, between the 'progressive British Christians vs. negative Roman Christians' slant of 5E and especially the Book of Uther.

      Delete
    2. I share your feelings on that matter, M.L. Martin. However, one of the virtues of Pendragon is that its sources are so varied that it's easy for the referee to put his own particular spin on the setting, characters, and overall arc of Arthur's reign. I ignore many elements Stafford seemed to prefer without any harm to the play of the game.

      Delete
    3. Good point; thanks for the reminder. I'm still more likely to use it as an inspiration source than playing 'pure' Pendragon, for various reasons, and I'll probably ignore the forthcoming 6th Edition, but there's still plenty of good stuff in the backlist.

      Delete
    4. I was actually involved in the early playtesting of the new edition and I wasn't all that impressed. Lots of things felt watered down to me, both mechanically and setting-wise.

      Delete
    5. Yes, I've always played Pendragon as my own understanding of Mythic Britain, pretty much ignoring the authorial "directives" about How Things Should Be™. It would probably annoy purists, but I've always had fun with it.

      Delete
  7. I never got the chance to play Pendragon either.
    As a late entry to "games I always wanted to play but didn't" I'd have to name Talislanta. It seemed such a rich background.
    I met the folks from Bard Games when they hosted an AD&D tournament at a hobby shop in Greenwich, CT. My team won and I got a free copy of The Compleat Alchemist. I enjoyed your review. Will you ever review The Compleat Spellcaster and The Compleat Adventurer?
    I wonder if the spelling was a nod to The Compleat Strategist, the iconic gaming shop in NYC that was the recipient of so much of my lawn mowing money?
    Another game I never even saw but was curious about was called "The Yellow Dragon." I saw an ad for it in a catalog in the mid-80s, I believe. The ad ran something like, "A fantasy game with a new twist. Featuring the yellow dragon, which is a coward 890% of the time!) Sounds like one of those homespun RPGs put out by a few enthusiastic kids. Have you ever come across it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Perhaps I missed it James but which edition do you use?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a cobbled-together version made up of bits of several editions. I think it's mostly a 4th/5th hybrid.

      Delete
  9. About "long campaigns", are you familiar with this one?

    https://thegamednd.com/the-game-out-of-game/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone sent me a link to that the other day, actually. It's fascinating.

      Delete